Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes

Unclassified

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 Purpose ...... 4 1.2 Regulatory Context ...... 4 1.3 Background to the Decommissioning Proposals ...... 5 1.4 Exploration of Re-use Opportunities ...... 7 1.5 Summary of Decommissioning Proposals ...... 7

2.0 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ...... 9 2.1 BG’s Approach ...... 9 2.2 The Engagement Programme ...... 9 2.3 Learning from Others ...... 9

3.0 KEY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ...... 11 3.1 Introduction ...... 11 3.2 DECC (now BEIS)...... 13 3.3 Regulatory Agencies and Statutory Consultees ...... 13 3.4 Early Stage Briefings ...... 15 3.5 Stakeholder Workshop ...... 18 3.6 Comment on Emerging Recommendations ...... 20

4.0 RESPONDING TO THE CONSULTATION ...... 23 4.1 Commenting on the Draft Decommissioning Programmes ...... 23

5.0 REFERENCES ...... 24 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 ABBREVIATIONS ...... 25 APPENDIX 2 PIPELINE STATUS - NEARSHORE ...... 26 APPENDIX 3 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS ...... 27 APPENDIX 4 INTRODUCTORY EMAIL TO STAKEHOLDERS 26 June 2016 ...... 29 APPENDIX 5 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP ...... 31 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 – Exploration of Re-use Options ...... 7 Table 2 – Key Engagement Milestones, Activities and Outcomes ...... 11 Table 3 – Preliminary Stakeholder Comments ...... 16 Table 4 – Queries Arising from the Stakeholder Workshop, November 2015 ...... 19 Table 5 – Responses to Emerging Recommendations Report Issued to Stakeholders ...... 21 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - Atlantic & Cromarty Field Location ...... 5 Figure 2 – Atlantic & Cromarty Field Layout ...... 6

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 3

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose

This report describes the engagement which BG Group (BG) has undertaken with stakeholders during the pre-planning for the decommissioning of the subsea facilities and pipelines associated with the Atlantic and Cromarty (A&C) Fields in the outer Moray Firth which ceased production of gas and gas condensate in 2009. It is made available as part of the statutory and public consultation which has been triggered by submission of Draft Decommissioning Programmes to the Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) which assumed the responsibilities for decommissioning from the Department of Energy and Climate Change in July 2016.

The Stakeholder Engagement Report is one of three documents submitted for consultation in support of the Draft Decommissioning Programmes [1] for the A&C Field, alongside the Comparative Assessment Report [2] and the Environmental Impact Assessment Report [3]. Each of these documents is available online at the BEIS website1, on request from BG (see section 4), and, during the consultation, available at its offices2. Other documents cited within each of the documents can also be made available to consultees for inspection by prior arrangement with BG (see Section 4).

The consultation runs from 20 September to 20 October 2016 and details of how to respond are advised in Section 4 of this document. Responses from statutory, regulatory and public consultees will be incorporated into the ‘final’ Decommissioning Programmes which are submitted for approval, and reported in an updated version of this present document.

1.2 Regulatory Context

The decommissioning of offshore oil and gas installations and pipelines on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS) is controlled through the Petroleum Act 1998, as amended by the Energy Act 2008.

The UK's international obligations on decommissioning are governed principally by the 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention) [4] which requires the removal of facilities (e.g. platforms and subsea infrastructure) except in very special circumstances. The DECC Guidance Notes [5] align with OSPAR Decision 98/3. The intention for removal of the A&C facilities complies with these requirements.

Pipelines do not fall within the remit of OSPAR Decision 98/3 but BEIS requires that operators apply the OSPAR framework of comparative assessment when assessing all feasible options for those pipelines which are candidates for decommissioning in situ.

Because of the widely different circumstances of each case, the Guidance Notes do not predict with any certainty what decommissioning strategy may be approved in respect of any class of pipeline. Each pipeline must therefore be considered on its merits and in the light of comparative assessment of the feasible options taking into account the safety, environmental, technical, societal and cost impacts of the options.

1 See ‘Table of draft decommissioning programmes under consideration’ at www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas- decommissioning-of-offshore-installations-and-pipelines. 2 BG Group, 27 Albyn Place, Aberdeen AB10 1YL

Page 4 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

1.3 Background to the Decommissioning Proposals

The Atlantic and Cromarty Fields are located in the outer Moray Firth in UK Continental Shelf (UKCS) Blocks 14/26a, 20/1 (north) and 13/30 respectively (see Figure 1). They lie approximately 79 km northeast of the St Fergus gas terminal on the north east Aberdeenshire coast and approximately 135 km from the median line with Norway. Figure 1 shows the location of the fields and their associated subsea infrastructure which tie the fields back to shore.

Figure 1 - Atlantic & Cromarty Field Location

Gas and gas condensate production from within the fields began in 2005 and ended in 2009, with permission to cease production formally granted by DECC in 2011. The pipelines were cleaned and put into the Interim Pipeline Regime (IPR) pending investigation of options to extend the useful life of the fields. The Atlantic manifold (see Figure 2), the largest item of subsea equipment within the A&C infrastructure, which connects the A&C wells to the export pipeline and to the control umbilicals (operated from the neighbouring Goldeneye platform) was also left in place for this period together with other subsea equipment. The three wells were mechanically plugged in 2014, pending full ‘plug and abandonment during decommissioning execution.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 5

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Figure 2 – Atlantic & Cromarty Field Layout

Page 6 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

1.4 Exploration of Re-use Opportunities

A number of options for re-using the A&C facilities have been explored since production ended, including:

 Use of the reservoirs for gas storage;

 Use of the reservoirs for storing carbon dioxide;

 Sale of the facilities and infrastructure to other oil and gas companies.

A summary of the discussions held appears in Table 1 below.

Table 1 – Exploration of Re-use Options

Date Potential Re-use Opportunity

Discussions on potential third party acquisition of the entire Atlantic & Cromarty system 2010-2011 (including fields and associated infrastructure).

2010-2011 Discussions to explore carbon capture and storage and potential tie-in the Phoenix Field.

Discussions on potential third party acquisition in the Atlantic and Cromarty fields and/or all or 2012 part of the associated infrastructure for the purposes of carbon capture and storage.

Discussions held as part of DECC’s Carbon Capture & Storage Commercialisation Programme 2012-2013 Competition.

2013 Initial discussions following expression of interest in A&C as a credible infill/tie-back opportunity.

None of these discussions have proved fruitful, although there remains interest by third parties in the possibility of continued preservation of the Atlantic export pipeline for transporting carbon dioxide for offshore storage. Nevertheless, discussions with DECC and the Oil & Gas Authority in March 2016 confirmed the regulatory requirement that decommissioning programmes should still be brought forward since there is no specific commercial opportunity that would justify additional delay.

1.5 Summary of Decommissioning Proposals

The decommissioning proposals are set out in full in the Draft Decommissioning Programmes [1]. To summarise, BG’s proposals are as follows:

 Subsea infrastructure will be removed to shore during the decommissioning works, and the three production wells will be plugged and abandoned.

 Pipelines and umbilicals will be decommissioned in place (including the export pipeline) following disconnection from subsea installations, noting that these are predominantly buried with the exception of several sections of the export pipeline within the first ten kilometres from shore. In these latter areas (see pipeline burial summary in Appendix 2), remedial rock cover will be applied for safety reasons at areas where scallop fishermen may dredge, and further mitigating actions will be implemented to ensure future risk to other users of the sea is as low as reasonably practicable.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 7

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

 Debris sweeps and overtrawl trials will be undertaken to confirm the safety of the decommissioned areas before the exclusion zones for the fields are removed. Post- decommissioning environmental and pipeline surveys will also be carried out following completion of the decommissioning works, with the timing to be discussed and agreed with BEIS.

Page 8 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

2.0 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

2.1 BG’s Approach

Stakeholder engagement is mandated by BG’s internal procedures, and a requirement of the DECC Guidance Notes [5] and offshore industry body Oil & Gas UK in its Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement [6].

A key tenet of successful engagement is the provision of timely information which enables stakeholders to input into the shape of plans, allowing any concerns or issues to be addressed and, where relevant, properly explored. Such an approach not only satisfies stakeholders that their interests and concerns have been properly taken account of in the preparation of decommissioning proposals, it ensures that the foundations on which proposals are developed are comprehensive and robust.

There are also broader benefits to be derived from engagement and BG recognises that stakeholder knowledge and expertise can make a valuable contribution to ensuring well- founded and balanced proposals, especially where formal comparative assessment of decommissioning options is required. Stakeholders are therefore regarded as ‘fellow travellers’ on the A&C decommissioning journey.

2.2 The Engagement Programme

An external stakeholder engagement programme was initiated by BG on the basis of commitment to early and ongoing dialogue with those with an interest in or potentially impacted by the A&C decommissioning proposals, and with those whose specialist knowledge might help inform the pre-planning process to ensure appropriate inputs for decision-taking, including in support of the comparative assessment of options for the pipelines. Activity was led by a stakeholder relations manager within the decommissioning team.

Stakeholders were identified amongst the following categories:

 Regulators and their advisory agencies (regulatory consultees)

 Statutory consultees

 A&C partners

 Commercial agreement partners (operators with pipelines crossing the A&C facilities)

 Other stakeholders with coastal, community, energy, environmental, fishing, industry, and marine interests.

Stakeholder organisations with which contact was established and maintained are listed in Appendix 3.

2.3 Learning from Others

BG recognised the importance of working with others operating in the decommissioning sector and beyond whose experience could provide useful insights for programme design and, later, for potential involvement in execution. A programme to facilitate supply chain

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 9

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

contact with the decommissioning team was, therefore, set up in parallel to the stakeholder programme to build awareness of the particular characteristics of the A&C project amongst external companies and to benefit from the learnings and experiences of these.

During the course of 2015 and early 2016, some 25 companies made presentations to the BG decommissioning team and engaged in discussions about potential approaches, project scope and capabilities.

Furthermore, in recognition of the insights gained by other operators, discussions were also held with decommissioning project managers at a series of informal bilateral meetings and one multilateral meeting to help inform BG’s first decommissioning project.

Finally, in order to keep abreast of emerging thinking and broader opportunities for learning, team members also took part in industry and sector workgroups and committees via Oil & Gas UK and Decom North Sea, as well as attending a number of relevant conferences, seminars and industry events throughout 2015 and 2016.

Page 10 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

3.0 KEY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

3.1 Introduction

The key engagement activities of the external stakeholder programme are summarised in Table 2 and principal elements described in more detail in the sections which follow.

Table 2 – Key Engagement Milestones, Activities and Outcomes

Date Stakeholder Engagement Outcomes

April 2015 Site visit to St Fergus coast, and introductory Familiarisation with coast where (buried) meeting with onshore terminal operator (Apache) export pipeline reaches land and local context-setting.

May 2015 Meeting with DECC EMT, Marine Scotland and Joint The scope of work for the survey was Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) (with JNCC modified to include additional sampling also representing Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH)) points in accordance with the requirements to discuss the scope of work for the Pre- of the regulatory agencies expressed at Decommissioning Environmental Baseline Survey. and after the meeting.

May 2015 Introductory meeting with the Scottish Environmental Clarification provided by SEPA on the Protection Agency (SEPA) for familiarisation offshore permitting required in association purposes. with eventual programmes.

June 2015 First meeting held with the Scottish Fishermen’s Agreed that a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to Federation (SFF, a statutory consultee) to initiate pipeline decommissioning for A&C was not project and seek early stage input to characterise the appropriate and that a section-by-section nearshore area in terms of fishing activity. treatment, particularly in the nearshore area, was required given the varying pipeline characteristics and potential interactions with other users of the sea. Ongoing dialogue enabled incorporation of SFF advice regarding inputs to CA process and survey activities.

June 2015 Introductory email briefing sent to all stakeholders. Various responses - see Table 3.

August Meeting held with DECC EMT to understand the DECC clarification and guidance used to 2015 precise definitions of pipeline regulation jurisdictions inform development of CA and programme. and also to understand approaches to different pipeline decommissioning options in the past.

August Meeting with the SFF on detailed characteristics of Seabed environment details incorporated 2015 the nearshore and offshore seabed. into planning for the Pre-Decommissioning Environmental Baseline Survey. Discussions were also held regarding the nearshore section of the export pipeline and piggybacked MEG Regarding ruling out options, SFF did not line in terms of whether or not any options for consider any options could be ruled out comparative assessment (e.g. removal of partial rock without further information. cover) could be clearly ruled out in order to assist with options screening and relevant assumptions to ensure the correct studies could be commissioned without waste.

September Multilateral meeting with project and commercial Any close working to others’ pipelines will 2015 partners to discuss interactions at crossings with be subject to proximity agreements as per respect to pipeline and umbilical decommissioning. normal working practice.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 11

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 2 – Key Engagement Milestones, Activities and Outcomes / continued

Date Stakeholder Engagement Outcomes

October BG tour of Fraserburgh Harbour (with SFF). Better understanding of the challenges 2015 faced by other users of the sea

October Further meeting with the SFF held to share the results Observations by the SFF used to inform 2015 of the remotely operated vehicle video survey of the inputs to the comparative assessment export pipeline. process.

November Stakeholder Workshop held, with pre-read and post- Further study on trenching undertaken 2015 workshop report and other materials provided to all following Stakeholder Workshop. stakeholders for additional comment. Also follow-up meeting with JNCC. See Table 4 for full details of responses.

December Statutory consultee Global Marine Systems advise Noted for execution phase. 2015 that decommissioning operations should be notified to cable owners and other sea users in the nearby vicinity of any works via notices to mariners and the Kingfisher Fortnightly Bulletin. The UK Hydrographic Office and any cable owners should also be kept informed at execution stage if any interactions likely.

January Comparison made of nearshore pipeline video Recognition of trend towards build-up of 2016 footage from 2011 survey alongside 2015 results and cover. Technical note produced to shared with SFF to indicate trends of pipeline cover document this [7]. by natural processes.

February SFF presentation on seabed clearance and Improved understanding of considerations 2016 restoration made to BG decommissioning team. that will need to be made when planning mitigation, debris clearance and post- decommissioning surveys.

February Two SFF representatives joined the comparative SFF’s inclusion enabled full consideration 2016 assessment scoring workshop for the nearshore of comments within the wider context and section of the export pipeline to provide broader more informed scoring. perspective. SFF advised that while their preferred solution was for total removal, in the context of the CA BG to liaise with relevant government which scored a leave in situ solution most highly, rock departments and the SFF on rock cover cover should be used to mitigate safety risks on areas specifications and overtrawl trials post- of pipeline exposed or potentially exposed to scallop decommissioning works. dredgers.

March Pre-Decommissioning Environmental Baseline Survey Noted. Questions of clarification 2016 Report provided to DECC EMT, Marine Scotland, answered. JNCC, and SNH with offer of presentation and/or discussion if required. Responses from three parties acknowledged that they were content with the results (DECC EMT has yet to comment). Questions of clarification were also posed by Marine Scotland on several aspects of the research.

March All stakeholders were issued with the Emerging Various responses – see Table 5. 2016 Recommendations from the CA process in March 2016 for comment. Substantive responses received.

Page 12 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

3.2 DECC (now BEIS)

Quarterly update meetings have been held with DECC’s Offshore Decommissioning Unit (ODU) throughout the pre-planning phase of the project since March 2015. Representatives from the Environmental Management Team (EMT) have often been present at these and, on one occasion, the Oil and Gas Authority (OGA).

While primarily conceived as a means of updating the ODU on the progress of planning activity, the meetings have also proved useful to the A&C decommissioning team in enabling greater understanding of regulatory expectations and how project elements need to be presented in order to capture all relevant elements and ensure full understanding by regulatory agencies, statutory consultees and the broader stakeholder base.

In addition to the quarterly meetings, reference has been made to the ODU and EMT on an ad hoc basis where questions have arisen or clarifications needed, explored through email, telephone and, on occasion, at meetings where wider discussion and guidance has been needed.

3.3 Regulatory Agencies and Statutory Consultees

3.3.1 Pre-decommissioning Environmental Baseline Survey

In May 2015, a meeting was held with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC, who also represented Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) at the meeting), Marine Scotland, and DECC EMT in order to introduce the project and to seek input into the draft scope of work for the pre-decommissioning environmental baseline survey. As a result of the discussion, a map showing sampling locations relative to infrastructure to be decommissioned was circulated to these regulatory agencies. Survey requirements were also modified to include additional sample points and to check the status of two spans in-trench on the main export pipeline which had been previously identified in 2009 and 2011 and to confirm that natural backfilling was continuing. Revised scopes were circulated for the survey which concluded in September 2015.

Highlights of the findings were reported at the stakeholder workshop held in November 2015, whose participants included JNCC and Marine Scotland (amongst others), and a further meeting was held with JNCC in December 2015 for the purposes of updating the regular liaison officer who had not been able to attend.

The results of the final survey reports were shared with DECC EMT, JNCC, Marine Scotland and SNH and comment sought. The written responses acknowledged that:

 JNCC considered the reports provided a robust environmental baseline and habitat assessment;

 SNH found that overall the reports were comprehensive and well-presented, with useful maps for visualising depths, habitat types and pipeline exposures along the inshore component of the pipeline route;

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 13

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

 Marine Scotland regarded the reports to be well presented with a logical and consistent format, and that the survey techniques, analytical methods and data processing employed in the report were of a suitable standard capable of providing an evidence base for BG’s in situ pipeline decommissioning recommendations, and addressing information requirements as set out in the DECC Guidance Notes [5].

Questions of clarification were also raised by these regulatory agencies within the related correspondence which were answered by BG, and Marine Scotland also offered access to map resources.

SNH advised that if the Southern Trench Marine Protected Area search location proceeds to consultation prior to, or during decommissioning activities, then these would require further consideration to confirm that they would not affect the seabed features of the site, and provided advice in this context.

Finally, the survey reconfirmed the position of unexploded ordnance from the Second World War showing that it remained in position and had not been disturbed. That no change was detected was reported to the UK Hydrographic Office at the recommendation of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and subsequently appeared in a Notice to Mariners.

3.3.2 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA)

A meeting was held in May 2015 with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) to make introductions and to understand the environmental arrangements necessary for compliance with areas under SEPA’s remit in relation to BG’s decommissioning plans.

Discussion centred on licensing requirements and SEPA advised that while there was no history of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) ever having been detected within the A&C fields it would nevertheless be useful for a permit application to be made on a precautionary basis. This would allow authorisation of any vessel within 500m to accumulate and dispose of NORM-contaminated waste from subsea structures in the unlikely event that any is discovered.

SEPA were also represented at the stakeholder workshop held in November 2015.

3.3.3 Scottish Fishermen’s Federation

Contact with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation (statutory consultee) was initiated in January 2015, with formal meetings held throughout the pre-planning phase. It was agreed at an early stage following advice on fishing activity within the nearshore area that a section- by-section approach to considering options for the pipeline decommissioning was required because of the different on-bottom characteristics, and because of potential interactions with other users of the sea. This was incorporated into the approach taken for the comparative assessment process. The options for the nearshore section of the export pipeline and piggybacked MEG line were also discussed with the SFF.

The video footage available from the 2015 pipeline survey was shared with the SFF to better understand the seabed profile in the nearshore area and potential interactions with fishermen, particularly scallop dredgers. The SFF highlighted that uncertainty over fish types (and thus fishing locations) in the future make long-term risks harder to predict in the context of decommissioning planning and any solution needs to be framed within the possibility that

Page 14 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

changes to fishing activity and the seabed characteristics may require a revised approach to monitoring and mitigation in the future.

Comparison footage from the 2011 pipeline survey was also shared with the SFF to indicate trends of pipeline cover by natural process which showed a build-up of cover over the pipeline over time. This build-up of cover has been documented in a technical note [7].

In October 2015, the SFF arranged for members of the BG team to visit Fraserburgh Harbour to meet with local fishermen to hear about the challenges faced at sea and to better understand the techniques and technologies used for safe operations.

The SFF were represented at the stakeholder workshop in November 2015 and, in February 2016, at the comparative assessment scoring workshop for the nearshore section of the export pipeline in order to provide a broader perspective. The SFF advised that while their preferred solution was for total removal, in the context of the assessment which scored a leave in place solution most highly, rock cover should be used on areas of pipeline exposed or potentially exposed to mitigate safety risks to scallop dredgers.

The SFF were also invited to provide fishing track data for the socioeconomic and fishing risk study [8] prepared for the decommissioning pre-planning and were given the opportunity to review the study before it was finalised for gaps or errors.

Finally, representatives of the SFF were invited to present to the full BG decommissioning team in February 2016 on seabed clearance and restoration in order to improve understanding of the considerations needed when planning mitigation measures, debris clearance and post-decommissioning surveys. Together with relevant government departments, the SFF will be involved in the design of the overtrawl trials and the specification of any additional rock cover placed.

3.4 Early Stage Briefings

Following initial meetings with the SFF and DECC, together with the latter’s advisory agencies, a briefing was shared with all stakeholders to explain about the pre-engagement process being undertaken in preparation for decommissioning proposals to be brought forward for consultation. A copy of this briefing appears in Appendix 4.

Responses to this communication led to discussions with a range of stakeholders by email, telephone, and face-to-face meetings, largely focused on answering questions, introducing the project and explaining the development process more fully, capturing concerns, and enabling relevant requests for information for project decisions to be incorporated into the planning process. Table 3 summarises the comments made and how these were addressed, including where meetings were held.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 15

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 3 – Preliminary Stakeholder Comments

Comment in Response to Initial Stakeholder Briefing, June 2015 Response

Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce requested a meeting to Meeting held. discuss potential opportunities for its members.

Aberdeen Harbour Board requested a meeting to discuss potential Meeting held and harbour visit opportunities for onshore handling. undertaken.

Aberdeen Inshore Fisheries Group (part of the Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Comments noted for Federation) did not foresee any issues with rock cover on inshore sections as comparative assessment. these can enhance the type of habitat which attracts prawns, crabs and Contact made with the North lobsters, although different treatment would be needed to protect against East Creel and Line snagging by trawl vessels in relevant areas. Fishermen’s Association.

Noted, although given the Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers highlighted member interests as distance from the principal being confined to the nearshore area of the inner Moray Firth (principally the areas of the inner Moray Firth Dornoch and Cromarty Firths) for mussel cultivation. Disturbance to these mentioned, no disturbance was Firths would be of interest to them. envisaged.

Buchan Inshore Fishermen’s Association (and members of the (former) East Noted. Coast Inshore Fisheries Group) advised that they would share information with their c40 members. Expressed favourability towards working with survey companies subject to compensation for any loss of fishing time where removal of static fishing gear was required, and expectation of any disturbance to the sea bed being reinstated.

Decom North Sea requested permission to use project information on its Agreed. website to facilitate access to project details for its members.

East Coast Inshore Fisheries Group highlighted potential data sources as an BG shared the additional data area of concern in relation to the Marine Scotland Grid Economics Report sources with its marine which was perceived as lacking. Offered additional data source suggestions consultants for incorporation for socio-economic study. Offered to share information on the A&C project into the socio-economic and with its members. fishing risk study.

Energy Industries Council requested a meeting to introduce its new Regional Meeting held. Manager.

Global Marine Systems advised that the Peterhead-Alexandrovsk cable (in Noted. service 1915-1930) was the only existing cable in the vicinity of A&C which could potentially be impacted.

Health & Safety Executive advised that its subsea departments (pipelines, None required. wells, diving) would potentially be interested in the project and project information would be shared with them.

Lerwick Port Authority consider that the burden on the taxpayer for Noted. decommissioning meant that opportunities for UK companies, particularly in connection with onshore disposal, is desirable.

Page 16 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 3 – Preliminary Stakeholder Comments / continued: Response Stakeholder Comment in Response to First Briefing, June 2015

Northern Lighthouse Board advised that with only subsea Noted. infrastructure, they would have a limited input but would nevertheless be pleased to attend any meeting or presentation to keep abreast of BG’s intentions with respect to the methodology and timescales.

North Sea Regional Advisory Council advised that they do not Noted. usually become involved in consultations regarding decommissioning, leaving this instead to local partners (in this case the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation) who are better placed to respond. Asked to be kept informed as project progresses.

OGA interested in learning more about supply chain Discussed in DECC update meeting attended opportunities. by OGA.

Peterhead Port Authority replied to express interest in learning Port partners Norsea met with BG team to about the project and potential opportunities. discuss project needs and capabilities.

Professor W Ritchie, formerly of the Aberdeen Institute for Meetings held to better understand the dunes Coastal Science and Management who previously provided morphology at St Fergus, although this is to advisory service to the St Fergus Environment Committee gave be addressed in a separate onshore input regarding onshore environmental management. decommissioning programme.

Points answered regarding scope of Scottish Association for Marine Science wrote to outline environmental impact assessment. Meeting expectations in terms of approach to environmental activity, and held to discuss further and explore new requested meeting to discuss further. technological approaches that may be relevant to consider.

The Crown Estate advised of their expectations and powers to Noted. modify decommissioning activity once the Decommissioning Programme has been considered by BEIS, although they will be invited by BEIS to comment formally on the draft programme during statutory and public consultations. Asked to be kept informed about the detail of any activity within territorial waters (12nm) where pipelines may be decommissioned in situ.

Preliminary meeting held before second, The Industry Technology Facilitator asked to meet to share larger meeting with BG team; information details of potentially relevant projects they were undertaking that shared with wider colleague base, notably the might be informative for the decommissioning planning. Wells specialists.

The North East Creel and Line Fishermen’s Association advised Reassurance provided that compensatory that their concerns centered on impacts on static fishing gear arrangements were being made via the SFF during decommissioning operations including advance surveys. for relevant disruption of fishing activity for Requested precise details of the export pipeline location. the environmental baseline survey. Chart showing pipeline route provided.

No exposed sections of pipeline were (at that UK Fisheries Legacy Trust Fund Ltd highlighted the stage) expected to be left in situ, but Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Scottish reminder of the arrangement for payments Fishermen’s Federation, National Federation of Fishermen’s was noted. Correspondence followed Organisation and Oil & Gas UK regarding payment for exposed regarding other aspects of the MoU and its pipelines which may be decommissioned in situ. applicability for clarity on the detail.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 17

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 3 – Preliminary Stakeholder Comments / continued Response Stakeholder Comment in Response to First Briefing, June 2015

University of Aberdeen Business School (Professor Alex Kemp) Advised that although this had been highlighted carbon capture feasibility for the Captain Field examined, BG had not succeeded in adjacent to the A&C Fields and the view that the A&C export attracting a specific business opportunity to pipeline was at one stage considered as a possible way to make this proposition reality. BG had also transport CO2 for offshore storage. ruled out the possibility of taking this forward itself before embarking on the decommissioning pre-planning. Documentation provided at the meeting was shared with BG colleagues.

Thanked and noted. (Note also that Scottish Whale & Dolphin Conservation (WDC) advised that they did not Environment LINK and the marine task have the capacity to engage but would share the information group members are also a stakeholder for provide with the Scottish Environment LINK’s marine task force. the purposes of A&C decommissioning.)

3.5 Stakeholder Workshop

In November 2015, before the the comparative assessment of options, a stakeholder workshop was held in order to update stakeholders on the feasible options to be taken forward, and to explore the implications of different approaches.

The workshop was led by independent facilitators and attracted 25 external stakeholders in addition to representatives from BG and its specialist environmental and marine consultants. A copy of the attendance list, together with details of those who were invited but did not attend, appears at Appendix 5.

A pre-read document explaining the project was prepared in order to give stakeholders the opportunity to prepare for the workshop, and a post workshop report and evaluation (both prepared by the independent facilitators) was issued following the event, together with slides from the proceedings. Evaluation of the workshop was undertaken by the facilitators using feedback forms issued to stakeholders who attended, and scored highly on all points. All stakeholders received copies of this material, including those who did not attend, in order to maximise opportunities for further feedback.

While stakeholder questions were largely answered at the event, or remained to be considered within the comparative assessment, the principal action from the stakeholder workshop was to conduct a further review of the practicalities of trenching and burying methods to determine its potential effectiveness as a solution for decommissioning a section of the export pipeline in the nearshore area. The technical note [9] which was subsequently prepared by external consultants identified that this would not be a feasible solution (see s4.1.2 in the Comparative Assessment Report [2] for details).

Copies of all workshop materials and related documentation mentioned here are available from BG on request (see Section 5 for consultation contact details). Comments made in follow-up correspondence upon circulation of these to all stakeholders are captured in Table 4, together with how these were addressed.

Page 18 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 4 – Queries Arising from the Stakeholder Workshop, November 2015

Stakeholder Comment Response

Energy Industries Council were keen to understand how Meeting held to discuss. BG intends to engage with the supply chain, the initiatives in place to look at innovative solutions and to discuss EIC role in facilitating this.

Global Marine Systems advised desirability of provision Acknowledged and noted. of information about decommissioning operations to cable owners and other sea users in the nearby vicinity of any works via notices to mariners and the Kingfisher Fortnightly Bulletin. The UK Hydrographic Office and any cable owners should also be kept informed at execution stage if any interactions are likely. BG should also be aware of the need for consultation with owners of any new cables that may be laid across any pipeline ahead of decommissioning in case of potential damage.

Greenpeace Research Laboratories advised that Acknowledged, advising that this would be considered preference for oil and gas infrastructure on the seabed, as part of the comparative assessment of options with including pipelines and umbilicals, remains that these emerging recommendations communicated. should be removed wherever this can be done safely and without causing substantial collateral damage to surrounding seabed/water column.

JNCC (met after the Stakeholder Workshop) considered Acknowledged and noted. the inshore section of the field would be subject to the majority of discussion because of the variety of burial/protective features along the line (under SNH remit). Solutions which affect the substrate and disturb habitats least are to be preferred, and leave ‘as is’ decommissioning may be most appropriate from an ecological perspective, depending on the state of the infrastructure and ecological habitats nearby. Minimum disturbance preference means that JNCC would be unfavourably disposed to removal of pipelines from rock cover. In some habitats, trenching and burying has a more temporary impact than rock cover since the latter can more fundamentally change the seabed. JNCC clarified expectations with respect to post decommissioning survey requirements. The environmental survey scopes depend on the extent of the work that is done and the expectations with respect to recovery. JNCC recognised that safety is an important factor in the pipeline surveys – ensuring there are no pipeline free-spans that may pose a snagging risk to fishing vessels.

Pale Blue Dot asked for their position advocating reuse While reuse might be feasible, section 5.18 of the of the export pipeline to be formally recorded in spite of DECC Guidance Notes [5] requires a specific the government’s cancellation of the £1bn funding for the opportunity for carbon dioxide or hydrocarbon gas Peterhead and White Rose carbon capture and storage storage to be identified before any deferral of (CCS) projects. Acknowledged that CCS is not currently decommissioning can be considered. Additional commercial without financial support which makes guidance sought from the ODU confirmed this. scheduling difficult. Requested meeting to discuss Stakeholder position on retention of pipeline reported possible opportunities. in this document.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 19

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 4 – Queries Arising from the Stakeholder Response Workshop / continued Stakeholder Comment

Peterhead Port Authority thanked BG for the materials Acknowledged and noted. which are useful and informative in connection with potential decommissioning activity as a means to inform investment decisions and planning. Asked to be kept informed through future updates.

Professor W Ritchie, formerly of the St Fergus Coastal A meeting was held in January 2016 for a high level Committee, suggested an update meeting to discuss discussion of progress. progress of the decommissioning planning.

Scottish Natural Heritage confirmed its agreement with Acknowledged and noted, advising SNH that the advice from JNCC (see this table, above) which is export pipeline is to the north of the windfarm site broadly applicable for the inshore component of the mentioned and not therefore in conflict. works, with further advice to be given once full survey report and comparative assessment of options are available. Reference to a recently consented wind farm made which could require liaison.

University of Aberdeen Lighthouse Field Station asked This idea was explored in a telephone meeting with about opportunities to adopt nearshore pipeline the University and deemed to be feasible, subject to a infrastructure to house marine mammal monitoring project being put forward within an appropriate equipment. timeframe. The timing was considered by the University to be unlikely to coincide, but the idea would be explored with other export pipeline decommissioning projects. BG later put one of its pipeline contracting companies in touch with the University to explore the possibility of a demonstration project through that route.

3.6 Comment on Emerging Recommendations

Once comments were gathered from stakeholders and outstanding matters addressed, the final scoring for the comparative assessment of options was undertaken and a report on emerging recommendations [10] issued to stakeholders for comment before final proposals were set out in the Draft Decommissioning Programmes. The comments and BG’s response to them are set out below in Table 5.

Page 20 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 5 – Responses to Emerging Recommendations Report Issued to Stakeholders

Stakeholder Comment Response

Decom North Sea expressed appreciation of the Confirmation given to Decom North Sea that since the comprehensive stakeholder involvement in the materials were in the public domain, they could be used development of proposals and requested permission freely. to share the information with others in presentations on collaborative decommissioning.

Global Marine Systems advised that review of future BG (or its consultants) will review the A&C Fields for cables should be made prior to any decommissioning potential cable operations/installations prior to the start works of works to ensure there is no conflict.

Health & Safety Executive confirmed they had no HSE position acknowledged. comments to make on the document.

North East Creel & Line Fishers advised that there Noted. have been no problems for their boats (operating between 2 and 7 miles from shore) arising from the A&C pipeline since its installation in 2005 and that they see no reason for a change in the status quo.

NOF Energy invited BG to talk to their supply chain NOF Energy request to be taken up later in 2016. members at a later stage to ensure they are kept informed of BG decommissioning projects including A&C and others.

Oil & Gas Authority requested a more detailed briefing. OGA briefing given at DECC ODU meeting which they attended later in March 2016.

Royal Yachting Association confirmed that given the RYA position acknowledged. location of these decommissioning projects, they had no further comment to make.

Scottish Environment LINK said that it was unlikely ScotLINK position acknowledged, noting that the CA that its marine group would make a joint comment, Report had also been sent direct by BG to Marine Task although all members of the Marine Task Force had Force Members. been informed.

Scottish Fishermen’s Federation clarifications on Clarifications incorporated into final report. wording regarding its position were requested to make clear its first preference on decommissioning is for total removal and that its advice on wording for the application of rock cover in the nearshore area is based on a scenario where full removal is not the selected option, made in an attempt to avoid increasing risks to fishermen from ‘cut and recovered’ short exposed sections creating multiple snag hazards should rock protection be displaced, leaving exposed cut pipe ends.

Scottish Wildlife Trust noted the rigour of the CA SWT’s position acknowledged by BG; (i) safety reasons process and formally set out its position on for CA outcome in nearshore section highlighted and decommissioning regarding (i) environmental impacts intention to conduct surveys post-decommissioning and preference for complete removal of pipeline where explained; and (ii) parent company financial uncertainties exist; and (ii) its view that where contributions to independent scientific research through decommissioning in situ is selected that financial the INSITE North Sea programme advised. Meeting contributions to research should be made. offered with new policy manager – to be held Q2 2016.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 21

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

Table 5 – Responses to Emerging Response Recommendations Report Issued to Stakeholders / continued Stakeholder Comment

Summit Power letter objecting to any Explanation of DECC requirements reiterated. decommissioning of the export pipeline.

UK Fishing Legacy Trust Company asked for Following an exchange of emails to clarify, FLTC clarification on expectations of the size of pipelines confirmed that since the Atlantic export pipeline is within that may be decommissioned in situ in connection with the 25 inch diameter limit such a payment would not be potential payments that may be required on a ‘per km’ expected. basis covering the full length of pipeline for those over 25 inches diameter.

WWF advised that they had no comments at this WWF position acknowledged and noted. stage.

Page 22 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

4.0 RESPONDING TO THE CONSULTATION

4.1 Commenting on the Draft Decommissioning Programmes

The Draft Decommissioning Programmes, Comparative Assessment Report and Environmental Impact Assessment Report, together with this document, are available as follows: 1. At the BEIS webpage at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-decommissioning- of-offshore-installations-and-pipelines (see ‘Table of draft decommissioning programmes under consideration’ for entry under ‘BG Group’). 2. By email from Carol Barbone at [email protected], 01224 202169, or M 0777 552 3091. 3. For inspection during the statutory and public consultation period (20 September to 20 October 2016) at 26-28 Albyn Place, Aberdeen AB10 1YL.

Those wishing to comment on the Draft Decommissioning Programme should do so by letter or email to:

Carol Barbone Decommissioning Stakeholder Relations BG Group 26-28 Albyn Place Aberdeen AB10 1YL

[email protected]

Comments are requested by the close of business on 20 October 2016.

BG or its consultants may wish to contact respondents regarding any issues raised, or to request additional information where relevant. Feedback will be captured in the final Decommissioning Programmes which will be submitted to BEIS after consideration of the responses to the statutory and public consultation. As such, respondents who do not wish their name, organisation or all or part of any response to be made public should state this clearly in their submission.

Documents referred to within the Atlantic & Cromarty Draft Decommissioning Programmes, Comparative Assessment Report, Environmental Impact Assessment Report and Stakeholder Engagement Report can also be made available for inspection by prior arrangement. Please contact Carol Barbone as above.

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 23

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

5.0 REFERENCES

Documents are available for inspection (see section 4 for contact details) where not available online.

BG Group (2016) Atlantic & Cromarty Draft Decommissioning Programmes AC-ACD-W-RE-3001 [1] Available at https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-decommissioning-of-offshore- installations-and-pipelines (see entry for Atlantic & Cromarty within Table of Decommissioning Programmes under Consideration)

[2] BG Group (2016) Atlantic & Cromarty Decommissioning Project – Comparative Assessment Report AC-ACD-W-RE-3018 Issue C1 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-decommissioning-of-offshore- installations-and-pipelines (see entry for Atlantic & Cromarty within Table of Decommissioning Programmes under Consideration)

[3] BG Group (2016) Atlantic & Cromarty Environmental Impact Assessment Report AC-ACD-HS-RE-3017 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oil-and-gas-decommissioning-of-offshore- installations-and-pipelines (see entry for Atlantic & Cromarty within Table of Decommissioning Programmes under Consideration)

[4] OSPAR Decision 98/3 on the Disposal of Disused Offshore Installations (1998) OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic: Ministerial Meeting of the OSPAR Commission Sintra: 22 - 23 July 1998 Available at: http://www.ospar.org/convention/agreements?q=ospar+decision+98%2F3&t=&a=&s=

[5] DECC Guidance Notes (March 2011) Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas Installations and Pipelines under the Petroleum Act 1998, Version 6 Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69754/Guidanc e_Notes_v6_07.01.2013.pdf

[6] Oil & Gas UK (2013) Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement During Decommissioning Activities (2013) Available at: http://oilandgasuk.co.uk/13282-2.cfm

[7] Wood Group Kenny (2016) Atlantic & Cromarty Decommissioning Technical Note: Depth of Burial Study for Pipelines and Umbilicals, AC-ACD-SS-TN-3000

[8] Brown and May Marine (2016) Atlantic & Cromarty Fields: Assessment of Socioeconomic and Health and Safety Impacts on Commercial Fisheries, AC-ACD-HS-RE-3008

[9] Wood Group Kenny (2016) Atlantic Pipelines (Nearshore) Trenching and Rock Protection Technical Note, AC-ACD-T-SU-3004

[10] BG Group (2016) Atlantic & Cromarty Decommissioning Project – Comparative Assessment Report Emerging Recommendations for Stakeholder Comment Issue, AC-ACD-W-RE-3018 Issue B2 – amended following stakeholder comments to the version referenced in [2] above

Page 24 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

APPENDIX 1 ABBREVIATIONS

A&C Atlantic and Cromarty (Fields)

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

BEIS Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Department of Energy and Climate Change prior to 14 July 2016)

CA Comparative Assessment

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change (Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy since 14 July 2016)

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMT Environmental Management Team

FLTC (UK) Fisheries Legacy Trust Fund

INSITE Influence of Man-made Structures in the Ecosystem

IPR Interim Pipeline Regime

JNCC Joint Nature Conservation Committee

KP Kilometre Point

MEG Monoethylene Glycol, used for the purposes of hydrate control in gas pipelines

MoU Memorandum of Understanding

NORM Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material

OCU Offshore Decommissioning Unit

OGA Oil & Gas Authority

SEPA Scottish Environment Protection Agency

SNH Scottish Natural Heritage

UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 25

Atlantic & Cromarty Decommissioning Project – Stakeholder Engagement Report

APPENDIX 2 PIPELINE STATUS - NEARSHORE

Page 26 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

APPENDIX 3 LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS

Stakeholder Grouping Stakeholder Organisation Statutory Consultees Global Marine Systems Ltd Scottish Fishermen's Federation (SFF) National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations (NFFO) Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation (NIFF) Regulatory and Advisory Agencies BEIS/DECC Offshore Decommissioning Unit (ODU) BEIS/DECC Offshore Inspectorate (EMT) Health & Safety Executive (Hazardous Installations Directorate) Historic Scotland Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Marine Scotland Maritime and Coastguard Agency Oil & Gas Authority (OGA) Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) A&C Partners Hess Limited Commercial Agreement Partners Apache BP Britannia Nexen Shell Other Stakeholders Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce Aberdeen Harbour Board Aberdeen University Lighthouse Field Station Anglo Northern Irish Fish Producers Association ANIFPO Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers British Geological Survey British Marine Federation Buchan East Community Council (Buchan Area) Centre for Environmental and Marine Sciences, University of Hull Cetacean Research & Rescue Unit Decom North Sea East Coast Inshore Fisheries Group East of England Energy Group EIC (Energy Industries Council) Energy North (now folded) Energy Skills Scotland

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 27

Atlantic & Cromarty Decommissioning Project – Stakeholder Engagement Report

Friends of the Earth Scotland Greenpeace Research Laboratories Highlands and Islands Enterprise International Marine Contractors Association (IMCA) International Maritime Organisation KIMO (Local Authorities International Environmental Organisation) Lerwick Port Authority Marine Conservation Society NOF Energy North Sea Commission North Sea Regional Advisory Council Northern Lighthouse Board Offshore Contractors Association (OCA) Oil & Gas Producers (OGP) Oil & Gas UK OPITO Pale Blue Dot (from November 2015) Peterhead Port Authority Royal Yachting Association RSPB Scotland Scottish Assocation for Marine Science Scottish Coastal Forum Scottish Enterprise Scottish Environment LINK Scottish Oceans Institute (University of St Andrews) Scottish Ornithologists' Club (SOC) Scottish White Fish Producers Association Scottish Wildlife Trust Society for Underwater Technology The Crown Estate The Industry Technology Facilitator The Marine Alliance for Science and Technology for Scotland

(MASTS) The Scallop Association The Scottish White Fish Producers Association Ltd Ugie Salmon Fishings UK Fisheries Legacy Trust Fund Ltd University of Aberdeen Business School Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society WWF Scotland

Page 28 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

APPENDIX 4 INTRODUCTORY EMAIL TO STAKEHOLDERS 26 June 2016

Dear …

I am currently working with the BG team which is conducting the pre-planning for the decommissioning of the Atlantic and Cromarty gas and gas condensate fields (UKCS blocks 14/26a and 13/30) in the outer Moray Firth and wanted to make you aware of this in case you would like to have an input to our preparations for the comparative assessment of decommissioning options.

While it is a relatively straightforward decommissioning project, I am keen to ensure that stakeholder views are properly incorporated into our planning process as early as possible. I do not have detailed documentation to give you at this stage but I am keen to share what I can in general terms and to take on board any particular concerns which, from your point of view, need to be considered in our assessment of the viability and impacts of different decommissioning options. This will ensure that we haven’t overlooked any specialist studies or reports that will feed into this assessment.

If you would find it helpful to meet to talk through the project, or to flag up any particular issues based on the summary below, please do let me know.

By way of background, production from the fields began in 2006 and operations were ended in 2009/10. However, while many studies were conducted at that time and formal approval for cessation of production was granted by DECC in 2011, we are only now making the preparations for submitting a draft decommissioning programme as the intermediate time was used to look for alternative uses of the facilities.

In anticipation of this, we are now revisiting that preparatory work and updating it with new studies, pipeline inspections and environmental surveys. Notably, this will incorporate the 77 km export pipeline, currently held in the Interim Pipeline Regime. A diagram is attached showing the field layout and export pipeline which connects the fields to dedicated facilities at the St Fergus SAGE terminal on the north east tip of the Aberdeenshire coast.

The subsea facilities to be decommissioned comprise:

 The Atlantic manifold  Two Atlantic wells and one Cromarty well (tied back to the manifold) (to be fully plugged and abandoned)  The 77 km export and ‘piggybacked’ monoethylene glycol (‘MEG’) pipelines (largely but not exclusively trenched and buried – see below)  The 12 km production and piggybacked MEG pipelines (trenched and buried) which link the wells at Cromarty and Atlantic  The 12 km umbilical line (trenched) from Atlantic to Cromarty  The 31 km umbilical (trenched) from Atlantic to the neighbouring Goldeneye platform

Note: there are no offshore platforms or drill cuttings piles to decommission.

The eventual fate of all pipelines and umbilicals will be determined by a comparative assessment of suitable decommissioning options with mitigations where appropriate. We will be following the process set out in the DECC Guidance Notes on Decommissioning (notably Chapter 10 on Pipelines). A one-size-fits-all approach to the entire 77 km pipeline is not expected to be appropriate because there are sections of the main export line within the first 16 km from the shore which vary considerably in composition. These include pipeline sections which are:

 Surface laid without rock cover  Surface laid with rock cover at crossings with other pipelines  Surface laid with a protective rock berm to one side  Trenched with natural back fill

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 29

Atlantic & Cromarty Decommissioning Project – Stakeholder Engagement Report

The challenges of this 16 km section of pipeline also include more complex interactions with different types of fishing activity, as well as a more varied seabed environment, and we are currently working with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and others to examine these more fully. The forthcoming pipeline surveys due to be undertaken this summer may also reveal some spans along the main export line between the 16 km mark and the Atlantic and Cromarty fields themselves which will add to this complexity, as will crossing points with other operators’ pipelines.

As I mentioned at the start of this email, I would be pleased to receive any comments that you may have regarding the project at this early stage and to set up a meeting over the summer if you think this would be helpful.

I will, of course, continue to keep you informed at relevant points of the project to provide further opportunities for discussion, most notably following the initial comparative assessment of decommissioning options this autumn in order to explore emerging recommendations with you before these are confirmed in the decommissioning programme.

I look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Kind regards

Carol

Attachment:

Page 30 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016

Atlantic & Cromarty Fields Decommissioning Programmes Stakeholder Engagement Report

APPENDIX 5 STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP

PARTICIPANTS (attended 26 November 2015)

Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce Seona Shand Aberdeen Harbour Board Matt North Apache North Sea Duncan Fail BG Group Carol Barbone BG Group Andy Clucas BG Group Bob Davidson BG Group Scott McCrorie BG Group Brian Molloy BG Group Phil Shand Brown & May Marine Jake Laws Decom North Sea Matteo Bedini East of England Energy Group (Decommissioning SIG) Julian Manning East of England Energy Group (Decommissioning SIG) Paul Yeats Energy Industries Council Sarah Hutcheon Hartley Anderson (for BG Group) John Hartley Health & Safety Executive Fred Williams Hess Limited Chris Armes JNCC Rachel Ball KIMO UK Graham Humphries Lerwick Port Authority Calum Grains Marine Alliance for Science & Technology Scotland Kate Gormley Marine Scotland Science Peter Hayes Oil and Gas UK Karis Viera Pale Blue Dot Sam Gomersall Resources for Change Emma Cranidge Resources for Change Mike King Resources for Change Erica Sutton Scottish Association for Marine Science Lindsay Vare Scottish Enterprise Karen Craig Scottish Fishermen's Federation Steven Alexander Scottish Fishermen's Federation Pete West Scottish Fishermen's Federation John Watt SEPA Brian Blagden University of Aberdeen Professor Alex Kemp WDC Whale & Dolphin Conservation Fiona Read

AC-ACD-W-RE-3016 Page 31

Atlantic & Cromarty Decommissioning Project – Stakeholder Engagement Report

Wood Group Kenny Alan Ransom Xodus Group Peter Tipler

ALSO INVITED BUT DID NOT ATTEND

Aberdeenshire Council North East Creel and Line Fishermen’s Aberdeenshire Inshore Fisheries Group Association Anglo Northern Irish Fish Producers Northern Ireland Fishermen’s Federation Association Northern Lighthouse Board Association of Scottish Shellfish Growers North Sea Commission British Geological Survey OGA (PILOT) British Marine Federation Oil and Gas Producers Association Buchan East Community Council OPITO Buchan Inshore Fisheries Group Peterhead Port Authority Centre for Environmental and Marine Professor William Ritchie Sciences, Hull Royal Yachting Association Cetacean Research and Rescue Unit RSPB Scotland Crown Estate Scallop Association DECC Environmental Management Team Scottish Coastal Forum DECC Offshore Decommissioning Unit Scottish Creel Fishermen’s Federation East Coast Inshore Fisheries Group Scottish Environment LINK Energy Skills Scotland Scottish Natural Heritage Friends of the Earth Scotland Scottish Ornithologists’ Club Global Marine Systems Scottish White Fish Producers Association Highlands and Islands Enterprise Scottish Wildlife Trust Historic Scotland Society for Underwater Technology Marine Conservation Society The Industry Technology Facilitator Maritime & Coastguard Agency Ugie Salmon Fishings National Federation of Fishermen’s UK Fisheries Legacy Trust Fund Organisations University of Aberdeen Lighthouse Field Station NOF Energy

Page 32 AC-ACD-W-RE-3016